The human species being stunningly fallible, it's surely unrealistic to expect any man or woman to live up to each and every rule on a list that runs to 14 pages. But if you are the one who concocted the list in the first place, you've no one to blame but yourself when your critics start taking you out behind the woodshed for a thrashing.
So it is with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his famous compilation of "Rumsfeld's Rules," which, by my count, end at number 156 with the admonition: "If you develop rules, never have more than 10." I have to assume the Secretary was poking a bit of fun at himself with that last one.
Even with the welcome demise of Abu Musab al Zarqari, there is still no end in sight to the daily violence directed at American men and women and Iraqi citizens, few of us are in a lighthearted mood these days. And I am amazed at our low standing in the rest of the world as evidenced in the latest surveys published last week. Ronald Reagan used to say that he wanted to be feared and revered. I find it incomprehensible that we have now put ourselves in a position to be hated and despised by people in other countries, especially after 9/11, which caused the rest of the world to rally behind us. More and more people in and out of the military, and from both ends of the political spectrum, are questioning Rumsfeld's leadership and his responsibility for the difficult situation we face in Iraq.
Reading through Rumsfeld's list, I was struck by one rule in particular that, had it been followed, might just have prevented us from making the mistakes we've made in Iraq: "It is easier to get into something than to get out of it." That is especially true of the U.S. Army. We still have troops in Korea after more than 50 years. We still have troops in Bosnia after 11 years. Bet you didn't know that we still have troops in the Sinai Desert as a result of the Camp David Peace Accords signed in 1979. Critics claim that it was easy to go into Iraq because the Pentagon leadership didn't devise a coherent post-Saddam strategy -- and now the lack of one makes it very hard to leave. Dismissing or ignoring advice to the contrary, it is plainly obvious that Rumsfeld and his staff failed to plan for "what if" scenarios if the rosy scenario failed to materialize.
Charges of poor planning have rained fast and furious from a slew of retired officers, most notably Major General John Batiste, a former commander in Iraq. I have first hand knowledge of General Batiste's professionalism having him watched lead an Army Brigade into Bosnia back in 1995. I found him to be extraordinarily professional and very savvy, and I was in awe of his leadership skills. I pegged him back then as being destined to get selected for General. I have always viewed, with suspicion, Admirals and Generals who find the courage to stand up and speak their minds only after they have safely retired. General Batiste is different in that he actually turned down a third star and ended his career as a matter of principle, because he felt so strongly about our missteps in Iraq. Batiste claims that everything from the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the lack of proper armor for the troops to the latest alleged atrocity at Haditha is the result of poor war planning and naïve assumptions.
In scanning Rumsfeld's list, I concluded that he had left off what I consider to be the most important rule of real leadership: knowing when to stand up and be held accountable. In the Navy for a ship Captain, it's easy. You are singularly accountable for everything that goes on in your command, PERIOD. As the captain of Benfold, I knew that if we ran aground, had a collision or if I tolerated and condoned an abusive climate, I would be relieved of command. It is an honorable and time tested tradition in the Navy that has served our it well for over 200 years.
My question for you is should the concept of ultimate accountability be rule # 157 on Mr. Rumsfeld's list?
Join the Leadership Group on Gather: 
Captain D. Michael Abrashoff is a popular speaker author of The New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller It's Your Ship -- Management Techniques From the Best Damned Ship in the Navy, The Wall Street Journal bestseller Get Your Ship Together -- How Great Leaders Inspire Ownership From the Keel Up, and the seminal Harvard Business Review article "Retention Through Redemption."
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 31
The view was widely help, that this administration was as corrupt as any around the world. At lot of them wondered what happened to the great American ideals and standards we so suppose to uphold our leaders with. That was going on a couple of years ago now, and I can only image how much worse this international image has become.
Each time I hear about Rumsfeld, the news just seems to get worse. How can someone who has bungled it so badly still be running the show?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld says he twice offered President Bush his resignation during the height of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal, but the president refused to accept it.
However, there seems to be something about his management style that is well suited for battling the internal politics of the Pentagon. That being said, he has to stand up as the face of the internal workings it as well.
From a moral leadership perspective, he is certainly not wining any popularity battles but the question becomes "can he?" when we have an overall administration policy (as David Mentioned) that refuses to acknowledge and directly take on its mistakes.
Please tell me how you can be amazed at our low standing in the world. When Carter was President, and seeking the approval of everyone in the "world community" specifically in the middle east, was our standing any higher?
Was it Caligula who said, "Let them hate so long as they fear"? Do we aspire to approval? If so, how do we evaluate that approval. Do we believe that the approval of Castro for instance, is important? How about the Pope?
Just a thought.
John
I believe that the word "approval" has been mistaken for integrity - two very different things.
This administration talks of giving amnesty to Iraqi's who kill Americans, while Americans are still on the ground, and three days later three young soldiers are kidnapped and murdered. Zarqawi's replacement claims it is in retaliation for Zarqawi's death.Does it matter?
Rumsfeld was told repeatedly by Military experts that it would take MANY tens of thousands more troops than it did to invade Iraq and secure the country. They were told that it would take time and effort to win over hearts and mind, and were ignored.
Is Rumsfeld responsible for all of this. My answer is YES.
As Harry Truman said," The buck stops here." If Rummy wants to pass the buck, then the next person in line is Bush, not some over stressed Colonel, Sergeant or Private.
Being basically a total mush-head on things political, I might be inclined to be a LITTLE more positive about Rummy if he could just once admit that he'd made a mistake, even a tiny one. I think Bush's popularity is so low precisely because the whole administration seems congenitally incapable of admitting to the tiniest -- or biggest of errors. For cryin' out loud, just say something like "We underestimated the potential size of the insurgency" -- ANYTHING; throw us any frickin' bone here. That they cannot admit to any human failure makes me lose all confidence in them (they can't say what just about any moron with half a brain can see -- that whether you believed in the invasion of Iraq or not, they botched much of it, badly) -- or whatever confidence I had.
I chuckled when I read your quote of Caligula. I don't think you realize the profundity of quoting such a source while discussing Rumsfeld. Caligula, or known by his real name, Gaius, gained notoriety by performing acts of savage brutality-the likes the Roman Empire had never known. Roman scholar, Garret Fagan sums Caligula up as follows "Outlandish stories cluster about the raving emperor, illustrating his excessive cruelty and disrespect toward tradition and the Senate". I think looking to Caligula for military or political discourse might be a mistake. A second thought comes to mind when reading the responses. I have to admit I am fairly new to the blogging scene, and the level of discourse is disappointing and shocking. For example, instead of using facts, and level-headed arguments, people write in extremes. It seems that few people look to seek solutions, or share ideas. They just blast each other with ridiculous overstatements. For example, so far we have the enjoyment of liberals spitting blood, a Rumsfeld is the "best ever", (which reminds me of freshman girls cheering at football games), and a quote from one of the most brutal military figures to have ever lived. Let's get back to the point, which is, "How do we make this amazing country safer?" We are so bogged down in Iraq are we ready to handle issues from North Korea, Iran, or even Venezuela?
There is a real difference between approval and integrity. If we are truly about human rights then how do we display that stance? Carter never stopped talking about it but it was Regan who freed millions and Bush 2 who did so as well. And of those three, which two are hated most by the human rights crowd? Is there not some small issue with proportionality here? Gitmo = Iraq + Sadam is absurd isn't it? Even Abu Ghraib vs mass graves, or better yet, Abu Ghraib vs the actions of UN troops in Darfur seem to illustrate my point. Now that said, we absolutely should hold ourselves to a higher standard, and for that Rumsfeld should be held accountable.
The Caligula reference is absolutely intentional. If security was all we cared about then we wouldn't be in Iraq now. We would cut off the head, stamp on the body, see what rises from the ashes and repeat as necessary. But we didn't. And for this we are vilified? A reasonable argument could be made that had we worried less about collateral damage (acted more like Caligula) reconstruction would have been easier. I'm not certain I agree with that argument but isn't it possible that Rumsfeld's current problems are at least in part a result of his concern for collateral damage during the invasion?
Rumsfeld suffers from excessive pride, point conceded. It caused him to be blind and as Mike points out, the CO is accountable. So he should resign in a perfect world. That said, he was a hero, an aging "stud muffin" when he first hit the scene. I point this out only because I distrust the mob, even when I agree with the conclusion.
Allen, I bring these points up not intending to be extreme, just to illustrate a point, and I apologize that my language was imprecise. Did I do better?
Nice thread folks.
In a lighter vein, does anyone else know how Gaius became known as Caligula?
Caligula translates to "little boots" a name he was given as a child because he loved to hang out with soldiers.
Not being a defender or a critic of Rumsfeld, I am able to appreciate his problems with the military and most specifically the Pentagon. I spent my only shore duty tour and last career tour at a high level in the Pentagon after 20+ years on surface ships. It was truly a bureaucracy to end all bureaucracies peopled by admirals, generals and their minions who were far more adept at politics than they were at warfare.
The head of the nuclear Navy at the time, since deceased Admiral Rickover, was once asked when testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee what he thought could be done to correct the Pentagon's problems. His recommendation was to post guards at each Pentagon entrance one morning and fire every other person arriving, repeat that again six months later, repeat it again six months after that, and then assess the new status for further actions. He said that in his opinion we were top heavy with far too many generals and admirals and that at least 75% of them were worthless.
I recall that General Franks when asked for permission to fire on a top leader in Afghanistan had to consult with his lawyers and by the time he approved the mission they had lost contact with the target. Rumsfeld reportedly was very mad about that and was plagued by such political thinking and lack of professionalism in senior military ranks. There were exceptions to prove the rule, but they were exceptions.
Whether or to what extent Rumsfeld been able to fix this serious deficiency is not something I am able to judge at this time no longer being an insider.
I do know enough to know that calling for Rumsfeld's departure on the basis of the happenings of Abu Ghraib or Haditha is absurd. I also have studied insurgencies sufficiently to know that winning over them is a most difficult endeavor requiring years of concentrated effort. That we have progressed as far as we have is amazing.
Best regards, Ben
Author "Leading People to be Highly Motivated and Committed"
Until the Pentagon can run a tight ship that can be audited it will forever be in organized chaos. Having been here before and having CEO experience with GE I would have thought that Rummy would have started there in his effort to cut the fat.
Well written article Mike
"The lunatics are running the asylum."
Mike, anyone ever tell you, you look like George Cloonie(y?)
I'm not sure if he should go or stay for sure, I just hope somebody is taking notes about occupying a middle-east country after the battle has been won.